t'  "VEOSITY  OF  IMJMOIR  UBfMRY 

Ai  R 2 4 M7 

The  Production  Department 
By  JOHN  CALDER 

Manager  of  the  Remington  Typewriter  Works 
THE  GENERAL  PROBLEM 

The  economic  problem  of  the  Production  Department,  expressed 
in  a sentence,  is  to  furnish  daily  the  full  quantity  and  quality  of 
product  called  for,  in  all  its  required  varieties,  by  the  most  efficient 
shop  and  labor  arrangements,  and  with  a minimum  of  fixed  and  cash 
capital  locked  up  in  the  process.  A production  organization  and  a 
system  of  plan  management  which  will  accomplish  this  and  continue 
to  do  so  with  harmony  and  satisfaction  to  employer  and  employee 
alike  is  the  desired  end. 

The  underlying  practical  motive  of  the  seeker  of  efficiency  in  the 
Production  Department  is  not  indiscriminate  speeding  at  the  expense 
of  the  workers,  but  the  securing  by  cooperation  of  the  economies  ob- 
tainable through  either  anticipating  or  locating  and  removing  all 
wasted  time  and  ineffective  or  unnecessary  effort  and  expense,  whether 
clerical,  manual  or  mechanical.  It  is  directed  toward  enabling  em- 
ployee and  capitalist  alike,  under  the  most  favorable  conditions,  to 
make  the  most  of  the  opportunities  of  the  working  day,  and  in  so 
doing  a very  large  part  of  the  usual  burden  is  removed  from  the 
shoulders  of  the  employee  and  placed  upon  the  organization. 

In  a single  brief  paper  it  is  impossible  to  discuss  satisfactorily  in 
detail  the  subject  of  production  management,  and  I devote  myself  to 
outlining  the  most  important  factors. 

THE  DEPARTMENT  SHOULD  EVOLVE  ITS  OWN  SYSTEM 

Organization,  though  the  primary  factor  in  all  business,  implies 
coordination,  or  system,  and  not  much  can  be  accomplished  without 
the  aid  of  the  latter. 

Systems  of  production  are  necessarily  as  various  in  their  details 

Read  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Efficiency  Society,  held  in  New  York  City,  March  18 
and  19,  1912. 

6—1 


as  the  business  conditions  which  have  to  be  met.  All  attempts  to  fit 
a long-established  business  to  the  detail  of  a new  system  of  outside 
origin  should  be  discouraged.  Such  procedure  is  neither  scientific  nor 
sensible.  The  system  should  be  evolved  to  suit  the  business.  The 
task  of  prescribing  for  sick  plants  and  ailing  industries  has  in  recent 
years  become  a recognized  branch  of  engineering  practice  in  which 
able  practitioners  are  to  be  found  among  others  with  no  serious  pre- 
tensions to  engineering  training  and  no  experience  of  the  responsi- 
bilities of  continuous  plant  management. 

Some  conception  of  the  engineering  accounting  and  costing  and  a 
conviction  that  certain  methods  of  using  tools  and  forms  and  of  in- 
structing and  rewarding  workmen  cannot  be  improved  upon,  are  not 
sufficient  qualifications  for  attempting  the  reorganization  of  a business. 

Where  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  remodel  the  delicate  mech- 
anism of  any  concern  on  such  limited  intellectual  and  practical  capital, 
the  experiment  has  usually  turned  out  a dismal  failure.  In  some 
cases  had  less  been  attempted  and  the  limitations  of  the  proposed 
remedies  and  of  their  administrators  been  clearly  perceived,  results 
of  some  lasting  value  might  have  been  attained.  Extravagant  claims 
and  astonishing  ignorance  of  human  nature  have  put  to  rest  not  a few 
systems  containing  decided  features  of  merit. 

In  order  to  get  a glimpse  of  the  forest,  rather  than  of  the  indi- 
vidual trees,  let  us  stand  aside  a little  from  the  detail  of  plant  adminis- 
tration and  briefly  survey  the  field.  Consider  first : 


THE  VARIETY  OF  MANAGEMENT  PROBLEMS 

The  simplest  conditions  for  which  an  organization  and  a system 
have  to  be  provided  are  those  of  concerns  manufacturing  a thoroughly 
standardized  product,  which,  under  no  circumstances,  will  they  adapt 
or  modify  for  special  use. 

As  a business  policy,  this,  of  course,  may  be  carried  too  far,  and 
the  product  may  be  out  of  date  before  the  fact  is  realized.  In  such  a 
business,  however,  at  one  sweep  many  of  the  difficulties  experienced  by 
general  engineering  concerns  are  disposed  of.  Yet  there  remains 
ample  scope  for  engineering  and  systematizing  talent,  and  attention 
can  be  concentrated  on  a limited  number  of  definite  internal  problems, 
the  satisfactory  solution  of  which  may  be  obtained  by  gradual  and 
experimental  stages. 

In  plants  in  which  standardization  of  product,  a manufacturing 
basis  of  business,  and  reasonable  frequency  of  improved  design  are 

6 — 2 


6>S% 

Qj  \ & T f REMO  i E STORAGE 

carried  out,  the  shops  and  executive  staff  have  few  relations  with  the 
customer,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  supply  of  raw  materials,  their 
problems  are  purely  internal. 

The  large  number  of  plants  engaged  in  the  lighter,  standardized 
machinery  manufactures  are  embraced  in  this  class.  A comparison 
between  their  simple,  rapid-flow,  economical  administrations  and  some 
of  the  complicated  systems  offered  to-day  for  universal  application  is 
enlightening,  and  raises  the  issue  as  to  whether  we  are  not  sometimes 
“paying  too  much  for  our  whistle.” 

At  the  other  end  of  the  industrial  scale  we  have  the  business  in 
which  a complication  of  agencies,  some  within  and  many  outside  the 
plant,  must  be  skilfully  tied  up  to  each  other  with  as  little  red  tape  as 
possible,  if  they  are  to  produce  the  desired  results  within  a given 
time. 

In  a class  by  themselves  are  problems  of  management,  such  as 
ship  docking  and  repairing,  and  locomotive  overhauling,  where  the 
time  during  which  a large  investment  is  earning  nothing  is  the  govern- 
ing consideration. 

Between  the  extremes  cited,  namely,  where  cost  is  the  determining 
factor,  on  one  hand,  and  speed  of  completion,  on  the  other,  there  are 
all  possible  variations,  no  half-dozen  of  which  could  be  most  efficiently 
managed  on  precisely  the  same  system. 

AN  ANALYSIS  OF  INDUSTRIES 

The  plants  just  given  as  typical  economic  examples,  it  will  be 
noted,  are  embraced  in  the  “Assembling’'  class  of  industries,  a type 
which  includes  practically  all  the  operations  generally  termed  “Engi- 
neering.,,  The  outlook  of  the  modern  executive  engineer  is  by  no 
means  confined  to  the  above  types  of  service,  and  a broader  interpre- 
tation of  the  engineer’s  commission  is  obtaining. 

Reduction  processes  of  all  kinds  with  ores,  mineral  earths,  and 
other  inorganic  as  well  as  organic  substances  furnish  a great  field  for 
mechanical  as  well  as  administrative  ability  in  what  are  known  as  the 
“Continuous  Process”  industries.  In  these  the  whole  mass  of  the 
material  to  be  operated  upon  is  simultaneously  under  treatment. 

Many  of  our  largest  chemical  and  metallurgical  industries  are 
examples  of  purely  analytic  problems  in  the  arts  which  have  increas- 
ingly used  special  machinery  and  mechanical  appliances  and  now  fur- 
nish additional  tasks  for  the  engineer  in  organization,  system,  and 
management. 

6—3 


Textiles,  iron,  and  steel  and  many  other  continuous  process  indus- 
tries furnish  examples  of  synthetic  businesses.  These  usually  demand 
more  organization  and  system  than  the  analytic  for  efficient  operation. 

The  product  of  the  great  assembling  industries,  however,  where 
units  have  to  be  completely  and  elaborately  finished  on  a large  scale 
before  assembly  is  possible,  include  the  operation  of  our  machine 
shops  of  every  description  and  usually  call  for  the  highest  skill  of  all 
in  management  and  system.  ✓ 

THE  ENGINEER  IN  SHOP  MANAGEMENT 

The  demand  for  the  services  of  the  engineer  in  business  organiza- 
tions of  all  kinds,  and  particularly  in  industrial  ventures,  is  of  com- 
paratively recent  growth,  yet  it  bids  fair  to  be  rapidly  extended. 

The  control  of  the  machine  shops  themselves  by  engineers  has  also 
been  evolutionary  in  character.  The  last  quarter  of  a century  has 
been  marked  by  the  steady  extension  of  the  engineer’s  art,  which  now 
supports  a large  part  of  our  modern  civilization,  and  a similar  develop- 
ment has  been  going  on  within  the  plants  themselves. 

During  these  twenty-five  years  the  managing  engineer  and  his 
staff  have  advanced  from  more  or  less  subordination  under  the  older 
systems,  and  merely  clerical  or  commercial  controllers,  to  no  mean 
understanding  of  the  once  mysterious  departments  of  accounting  and 
costing.  In  other  words,  within  almost  two  decades  the  engineer  has 
become  a bigger,  broader  man,  and  has  been  able  to  magnify  his 
office. 

In  many  plants,  through  the  domination  of  the  engineer  in  man- 
agement, empirical  rating  of  workmen  and  arbitrary  treatment  of 
labor  in  the  shops  have  become  things  of  the  past.  Possibly  the  extent 
to  which  this  has  been  done  is  somewhat  masked  by  the  absence  of 
publicity  on  the  results  of  private  endeavor,  and  the  flood  of  theory 
on  system  which  has  occupied  so  much  of  the  public  attention. 

The  intensive  application  of  the  principles  of  production  to-day 
owes  much  of  its  impetus  to  the  arduous  labors  of  the  distinguished 
engineers,  such  as  Fred  W.  Taylor  and  his  associates,  who  have 
restated  them  in  terms  of  modern  industrial  needs,  and  awakened 
great  interest  in  the  ultimate  possibilities. 

Before  discussing  the  types  of  production  systems  in  operation, 
let  us  consider  briefly  the  principle  that  informs  them  all;  viz.,  the 
well-established  doctrine  of  the  division  of  labor. 

6-4 


THE  DIVISION  OF  LABOR 


To  realize  how  slow  engineers  have  been  in  promoting  efficient 
administration  of  the  human  factors  in  industrial  establishments,  as 
compared  with  their  zeal  and  success  in  furnishing  material  aids,  a 
brief  glance  at  economic  history  is  necessary. 

One  hundred  and  thirty-six  years  ago — on  the  eve  of  the  War  of 
the  Revolution — Adam  Smith,  the  Scotch  philosopher  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Glasgow,  published  his  “Wealth  of  Nations,”  and  therein 
predicted  the  minute  subdivision  of  manufacturing  processes  and  han- 
dicrafts, and  set  forth  its  advantages. 

Sixty  years  later  the  principle  was  firmly  established  in  Great 
Britain,  and  Charles  Babbage,  a noted  English  mathematician  and 
mechanician,  described  in  1834,  in  his  “Economy  of  Machines  and 
Manufactures,”  the  minute  division  of  labor  in  repetition  work  actually 
obtaining  in  his  day  in  various  industries. 

The  methods  were  fully  illustrated  in  the  book,  and  its  author  also 
furnished  a complete  philosophy  of  the  subject  and  examples  of  calcu- 
lations as  to  the  limits  of  reasonable  investments  in  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery. 

The  synthetic  industries  forming  continuous  processes  and  dealing 
on  a comparatively  large  scale  with  the  necessities  of  life  were  the 
first  to  adopt  the  new  principle,  which  evolved  quite  naturally  with 
the  dawn  of  modern  industrialism.  Textiles  and  other  continuous 
processes  in  which  machinery  reigned  supreme  at  a very  early  stage 
were  the  first  to  be  affected  by  it. 

It  then  spread  rapidly  to  all  simple  forms  of  hardware  manufacture 
where  large  quantities  were  manipulated.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
twentieth  century  it  was  in  its  most  refined  form  the  basis  of  organiza- 
tion and  system  in  all  light  machinery  manufactures  and  in  not  a few 
other  industries.  Yet,  until  this  time,  the  ordinary  machine  shops, 
which  had  greatly  improved  their  tool  equipment,  had  done  very  little 
to  develop  the  possibilities  of  the  principle  among  the  human  factors. 
These,  very  largely,  were  permitted  to  drift,  to  follow  the  division  of 
labor  naturally  created  by  usurping  machinery  inventions,  while  the 
pure  handicrafts,  unaffected  by  mechanical  engineering  progress,  were 
allowed  to  remain  in  much  the  same  inefficiency  as  the  art  of  Tubal 
Cain. 

In  our  own  day — three-quarters  of  a century  after  Babbage — we 
still  find  the  division  of  labor  with  machinery  carried  much  further 
than  the  division  of  hand  tasks  which  he  also  advocated  and  described 

6-5 


In  many  cases  with  us  the  unimproved  “trade”  is  still  the  economic 
unit  instead  of  the  intensified  “task.”  This  is  particularly  the  case  in 
metal  manufacturing  and  the  building  industries.  Not  only  so,  but 
labor  has  shown  little  disposition  to  improve  the  “trades,”  many  of 
which  are  notoriously  wasteful  of  time  and  effort. 

Until  quite  recently  it  had  not  occurred  to  many  engineers  en- 
gaged in  management,  as  distinguished  from  manufacturers  pure  and 
simple,  to  apply  the  intensive  and  task  method  of  shop  management 
thoroughly  to  anything  except  very  light  and  very  simple  operations, 
and  to  not  many  of  these. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  in  these  days  when  the  high  cost  of  living 
is  a pressing  problem  that  economic  necessity,  if  not  inclination,  will 
finally  drive  us  to  take  up  in  all  seriousness  the  conservation  and 
intensive  application  of  human  energies  in  every  department  of  ac- 
tivity, distributive  as  well  as  productive,  and  that  new  avenues  of  use- 
fulness will  open  up  for  the  man  who  has  thoroughly  prepared  himself 
by  intellectual  and  practical  discipline  for  the  profession  of  the  pro- 
duction engineer. 


THE  VARIETY  OF  SYSTEMS 

We  have  glanced  at  the  variety  of  administrative  problems,  and 
it  is  not  my  intention  at  present  to  go  over  in  wearisome  detail  the 
variety  of  systems  devised  to  meet  these  problems.  These  can  be 
much  better  studied  from  the  ample  literature  on  the  subject.  I do 
wish  at  this  time,  however,  to  take  a general  view  of  the  situation. 

These  systems  are  directed,  as  a whole,  towards  enabling  the 
organization  to  attain  the  greatest  productive  accuracy,  speed,  machine 
capacity,  and  labor  efficiency,  the  minimum  consumption  of  material 
and  supplies,  and  progressive  improvement  in  all  methods  and  appa- 
ratus. 

Some  of  these  systems  practically  ignore  the  organization,  and, 
while  professing  to  relieve  the  latter  of  its  burdens,  really  create 
another  organization  strictly  devoted  to  technical  details,  and  often  a 
source  of  conflict  of  authority  and  of  loss  to  the  business  as  a whole. 

Others  are  not  well  considered  systems  of  any  kind,  but  merely 
preferred  methods  of  handling  details  of  accounts,  of  costing,  of  in- 
ventories, of  labor  instruction,  labor  reward,  or  machine  operation,  in 
which  regard  for  the  human  factors  is  often  conspicuous  by  its  absence. 

The  systems  in  use  fall  more  or  less  into  the  same  two  divisions  as 
do  the  organizations  of  staff,  “divisional”  and  “departmental.” 

So  long  as  the  plant  unit  or  the  engineering  undertaking  is  small 

6-6 


enough  for  control  by  a thoroughly  competent  leader  in  advanced 
practice,  with  sub-officers  or  foremen  equally  well  trained  and  suited 
for  the  close  supervision  of  the  number  of  men  allotted  to  them,  noth- 
ing, I believe,  can  excel  in  economy  and  dispatch  the  “divisional 
system”  of  operation. 


THE  MILITARY  SYSTEM 

The  divisional  system  is  sometimes  termed,  usually  in  an  uncompli- 
mentary sense,  the  “military”  system.  As  a matter  of  fact,  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  frequently  caricatured,  the  military  system  carried 
the  load  of  our  industrial  arts  for  a century,  and  did  it  very  well,  too. 
It  was  no  inherent  fault  of  the  system  that  the  specific  arts  or  trades 
were  allowed  to  evolve  without  guidance  or  to  remain  stagnant. 

Military  systems  to-day,  which  are  supplemented  by  intelligence 
departments,  can  be  pointed  out  in  successful  operation  at  much  less 
cost  than  more  highly  elaborated  systems. 

The  real  difficulty  with  a well-organized  military  shop  system  is 
that  of  human  limitations.  The  number  of  people  who  can  be  effec- 
tively supervised  and  instructed,  and  the  number  of  things  which 
can  be  planned  for  by  any  single  individual  reaches  its  limit  as  the 
plant  unit  grows,  and  the  system  begins  to  fall  in  efficiency  thereafter. 

THE  FUNCTIONAL  SYSTEM 

Whenever  the  element  of  personal  contact  with  the  workman  by 
supervising  divisional  officers  ceases,  the  necessity  for  the  smaller 
departmental  unit-control  arises.  But  this  control  is  not  necessarily 
one  of  the  multiplied  functional  bosses. 

In  this  connection  some  confusion  at  present  exists,  and  it  is  sup- 
posed by  many  and  positively  asserted  by  some,  that  there  is  a particu- 
lar economic  virtue  in  pressing  departmental  systems  into  the  extreme 
functional  forms.  Here,  again,  in  actual  practice  we  encounter  human 
nature,  and  realize  that  shop  management  is  an  art  rather  than  a 
science,  and  that  it  has  to  deal  with  too  many  unknown  quantities  and 
variables  either  to  aspire  to  scientific  rank  or  to  adopt  a fixed  creed. 
There  can  be,  and  there  have  been,  too  many  poorly  coordinated  bosses 
in  functional  systems  of  management. 

In  one  production  system  the  great  division  of  labor  in  supervising 
functions  which  produced  certain  results  in  the  operation  of  rough- 
cutting metals  was  carried  over  by  analogy  into  the  fruitful  generaliza- 

6 — 7 


tion  framed  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and  made  to  do  duty  as  an  essential  “ele- 
ment” in  all  his  applications  of  the  method  which  he  has  termed 
“scientific  management.” 

Mr.  Taylor’s  contention  that  all  our  efforts  in  system  should  be 
directed  toward  developing  a “science”  of  each  industry  is  perfectly 
sound  and  a proper  ideal  for  every  administrator,  but  the  “elements” 
of  the  science  of  rough-cutting  metals  are  not  the  essential  “elements” 
of  many  other  engineering  operations,  not  to  mention  a host  of  indus- 
tries awaiting  intensive  development  by  the  engineer.  Nothing  but 
confusion  and  disappointment  can  come  from  assuming  that  they  are, 
and  endeavoring  -to  mold  all  our  industrial  institutions  after  one 
pattern. 

There  is,  in  fact,  no  royal  road  to  shop  efficiency.  The  “principles” 
of  “scientific  management”  have  pointed  in  various  hopeful  directions, 
and,  with  picked  men,  have  made  some  records,  but  they  have  not,  in 
my  opinion,  satisfactorily  solved  the  general  human  equation,  nor 
have  they  produced  “elements”  which  are  capable  of  rigid  application 
to  anything  except  the  narrow  field  in  which  these  originated.  But  it 
is  particularly  with  the  effects,  good  or  bad,  of  prolonged  trial  of  the 
various  systems  on  the  human  factors  that  the  production  manager  is 
chiefly  concerned. 

The  working  “elements”  of  “scientific  management”  are  accompa- 
nied invariably  by  an  excessive  amount  of  form  work,  recording  appa- 
ratus, irresponsible  clerical  control,  and  expensive  detail,  which  are 
quite  unnecessary  in  the  large  class  of  repetition-work  plants,  and  a 
source  of  annoyance  and  delay  to  staff  and  workmen  alike. 

Not  only  so,  but  nominally  highly  functionalized  in  supervision  in 
order  to  fix  responsibility,  the  “scientific”  system  actually  fails  to  do 
this  in  practice.  The  degrees  of  authority  are  too  finely  divided  for 
human  relations,  and  they  lead  to  friction,  delays,  and  nonaccounta- 
bility. In  fact,  the  inside  history  of  not  a few  attempts  to  install 
“scientific  management,”  rather  than  efficiency  measures  appropriate 
to  the  problem  in  hand,  shows  that  it  needs  an  even  greater  genius  to 
reconcile  its  practical  difficulties  than  it  does  to  run  successfully  the 
despised  military  system. 

The  latter  naturally  terminates  and  becomes  inefficient  with  the 
growth  of  an  institution — the  period  for  changing  to  departmental 
control  depending  wholly  on  the  caliber  of  the  organization. 

6—8 


THE  DEPARTMENTAL  SYSTEM 

The  departmental  system,  on  the  other  hand,  as  distinguished  from 
the  functional,  lays  no  dogmatic  rule  upon  industry.  It  has  no  quarrel 
with  initiative  and  incentive.  It  does  not  seek  their  extinction,  but 
their  wise  control. 

Under  a good  organization  to  begin  with,  and  aided  by  first-class 
intelligence  and  method-study  divisions,  for  these  elements  are  not 
peculiar  to  one  particular  system,  it  splits  up  the  shops  into  units  of 
control  of  reasonable  size,  supplies  the  best  staff  assistance,  apparatus, 
material,  and  scientific  instructions,  leaves  the  head  of  each  depart- 
ment full  control  within  his  sphere,  and  holds  him  solely  responsible 
for  increasingly  efficient  results.  In  getting  these,  he  may  function- 
alize more  highly  in  some  directions  than  in  others,  but  he  does  so,  not 
because  of  any  obligation  under  an  inflexible  system  to  follow  that 
course,  but  owing  to  the  proved  desirability  of  it.  This  is  the  true 
“scientific  management’' — management  “according  to  knowledge”  of 
the  facts  of  the  case,  not  according  to  theories  previously  framed  to 
suit  external  facts. 


THE  ABUSE  OF  SYSTEM 

“Scientific  Management,”  so-called,  is  really  a very  big  and  diffi- 
cult task.  It  has  been  outlined,  not  attained.  It  requires  professional 
ability  of  the  very  highest  order  and  heavy  outlays.  Stripped  of  the 
data,  apparatus,  and  phraseology  peculiar  to  it,  which  has  led  careless 
readers  to  regard  it  as  a new  way  of  running  machinery,  of  paying 
men,  of  avoiding  labor  troubles,  of  insuring  dividends,  etc.,  it  is  neither 
more  nor  less  in  its  essence  than  a bold,  far-reaching  proposal  to  revo- 
lutionize our  industrial  life.  Viewed  in  that  light,  it  is  a brilliant,  most 
interesting  and  suggestive  speculation,  based  upon  an  immense  amount 
of  industry.  Every  engineer  who  wishes  to  be  considered  thoroughly 
educated  should  give  it  close  study,  and  will  be  amply  repaid. 

To  the  shops,  however,  it  presents  itself,  not  as  a theory,  but  in 
ready-made,  complete,  technical  detail,  a most  expensive  detail,  and 
many  businesses  cannot  contemplate  the  years  of  outlay  which  are 
frankly  confessed  as  necessary  before  the  promised  returns  will  accrue, 
if  at  all. 

It  is  necessary  to  bear  constantly  in  mind  that  the  ultimate  measure 
of  good  engineering  and  production  management  is  that  which  is 
satisfactory  and  makes  the  dollar  go  furthest. 

Any  system,  however  attractive  and  justifiable  in  some  of  its  fea- 
tures, is,  like  the  plant  itself,  worth  no  more  than  it  can  earn.  No 

6 — 9 


manufacturer  is  in  business  as  a subject  for  experimentation  which 
may  not  point  the  way  but  merely  warn  others  from  following.  All 
money  and  worry  expended  on  system  beyond  the  earning  point  is 
wasted. 

An  admitted  experiment  of  measured  duration  and  conclusive 
nature  is  one  thing,  but  a shop  revolution,  confessedly  covering  years 
of  transition  experiences,  is  irretrievable,  and  usually  unsupportable. 

Dead  uniformity  and  absence  of  scope  in  a system  for  individual 
initiative  and  incentive  are  not  necessarily  factors  in  securing  what 
are  the  sole  justifications  for  special  outlay  on  system;  viz.,  absolute 
certainty  of  increased  economy,  accuracy,  and  dispatch. 

In  concerns  in  which  system  is  an  expensive  hobby,  rather  than  an 
economical  tool,  all  kinds  of  extravagances  will  creep  in,  and  will  be 
justified  by  some  philosophy  which  ignores  common  sense. 

One  of  the  claims  brought  before  proprietors  by  some  of  the  exter- 
nal practitioners  of  system  is  that  it  will  not  only  render  the  efficiency 
of  their  business  self-perpetuating — a most  desirable  end  if  attain- 
able— but  that  it  will  also  enable  them  to  become,  to  a large  extent, 
independent  of  their  managers  and  higher  executives.  This  is  a 
somewhat  mischievous  doctrine,  for  questions  are  constantly  arising  in 
which  no  corps  of  clerks  following  written  instructions  can  under  any 
conceivable  system  take  the  place  of  the  full  use  and  recognition  of 
able  engineering  administrators  and  their  assistants. 

The  human  element  in  the  system,  as  well  as  in  the  organization, 
is  half  of  the  administrative  problem,  and  there  is  a decided  lack  of 
elasticity  in  some  of  the  shop  systems  offered  for  general  application. 
The  production  manager  has  to  hire  in  large  numbers  the  average  man, 
not  the  phenomenon,  and  he  must  often  retain,  instruct,  and  develop 
him.  In  so  doing,  he  can  follow  no  counsels  of  perfection  but  a system 
dictated  by  common  sense  and  his  own  circumstances. 

It  is  not  a recommendation  for  any  business  system  imported  from 
the  outside,  but  rather  the  reverse,  that  it  should  insist  upon  absolute 
conformity  to  type  in  details  without  regard  to  the  particular  problem 
in  hand  and  the  great  amount  of  experience  already  acquired  from  it. 

Some  of  the  most  practical  modifiers  of  shop  management  are  fully 
alive  to  this,  but  there  is  a tendency  among  the  less  wise  to  wield  the 
new  broom  vigorously.  It  has  been  unfortunate,  to  say  the  least,  that 
the  cultural  and  practical  qualifications  for  entering  upon  responsible 
efficiency  engineering  in  the  production  department  have  been  too  low, 
and  that  the  study  of  men  and  manners  has  been  neglected  in  the  devo- 
tion to  method  and  means. 

6—io 


I believe  that  the  best  type  of  shop  system  is  evolved,  not  from  the 
outside,  but  in  the  shop  itself,  through  careful  analysis  of  its  special 
business  conditions  and  requirements  by  its  responsible  administrator, 
when  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  and  experienced  in  advanced 
practice. 

A busy  and  prosperous  administration  should  always  be  on  the 
lookout  for  betterment.  It  can  sometimes  be  helped  by  system  advice 
from  the  outside.  It  should  never  be  controlled  by  it.  The  most 
natural  tendency  of  the  temporary  outside  adviser,  with  authority  to 
change  but  without  responsibility  for  current  product  and  profit,  is  to 
stereotype  the  details  of  his  previous  limited  experience,  and  so  dry  up 
the  springs  of  initiative  and  suggestions  within  the  plant. 

The  best  productive  system  for  any  plant  or  engineering  under- 
taking is  that  which  will  coordinate  all  the  efforts  of  a good  organiza- 
tion, and  which  will  draw  out  and  suitably  reward  the  best  effort  of 
every  one  concerned — not  forgetting  the  employer.  The  most  suitable 
detail  for  so  doing  will  never  be  exactly  alike  in  any  two  cases,  though 
the  principles  followed  may  be  identical. 


THE  PROPER  USE  OF  SYSTEM 

In  concluding  the  present  topic,  I state  seven  rules  in  regard  to  the 
efficiency  of  office  and  plant  routine,  which  should  be  observed  irre- 
spective of  the  class  of  work  done. 

(1)  Have  a well-considered  system  of  doing  things,  definite  and 
business-like  in  all  departments,  not  an  imitation  of  something  else, 
but  one  designed  for  your  own  use. 

(2)  See  that  a broad  view  of  the  subject  is  taken,  and  provision 
made  for  properly  dovetailing  the  various  departmental  systems. 

(3}  Make  the  connection  clear  to  all  employees  by  the  use  of  a 
chart.  Such  a table  is  self-interpreting,  and  saves  much  explanation. 

(4)  Have  as  little  system  and  as  few  forms  as  possible.  Make 
them  a means,  not  an  end.  There  are  many  daily  items  of  shop  prac- 
tice being  perpetuated  in  expensive  card  systems  to-day,  of  which  no 
use  whatever  is  being  made,  or  is  ever  likely  to  be  made. 

(5)  Do  not  treat  the  system  as  a fetich.  It  is  a good  servant,  but 
a bad  master.  So  much  of  it  as  is  justifiable  is  merely  organized  com- 
mon sense.  Prune  and  pare  your  system  without  stint,  until  it  gives 
the  utmost  economy  and  dispatch. 

(6)  Do  not  fail  to  note  closely  what  your  system  costs,  and  if  it 

6 — 11 


is  really  paying  its  way.  Very  few  can  answer  that  question.  With 
many  it  is  purely  a matter  of  faith. 

(7)  Be  always  on  the  outlook  for  improvements  and  suggestions 
from  any  responsible  quarter,  and  discriminating  in  adopting  them. 

I believe  in  modern  system  in  the  Production  Department.  It 
should  receive  the  hearty  and  discriminating  support  of  all  plant 
managers.  The  latter  will  increasingly  be  drawn  from  the  ranks  of 
those  who  have  added  to  a thorough  practical  executive  discipline  in 
the  shops,  a full  comprehension  of  what  system  can  do,  and  also  what 
it  cannot  accomplish. 

The  amount  of  modern  system  we  need  in  our  industries  bids  fair 
to  amply  justify  itself  by  its  efficiency,  particularly  in  the  lean  years. 
The  rest  is  dead-weight,  and  should  go  promptly  overboard. 

Discussion 

The  Chairman  : Mr.  Calder  refers  to  Adam  Smith,  who  said 
that  formerly  one  man  could  make  100  pins,  pointing  off  the  wire  and 
polishing  it  and  doing  all  the  different  stages  in  the  process.  After 
the  division  of  the  labor  into  many  minute  parts,  one  man  cut  off  the 
wire,  another  made  the  end  of  the  pin,  another  made  it  smooth,  another 
put  one  end  of  it  in  shape  and  headed  it  up,  and  another  pointed  it,  and 
then  another  polished  it.  The  result  was  that  the  six  could  make 
more  than  10,000  pins,  each  man’s  labor  showing  that  twelve-fold  or 
sixteen-fold  accomplishment  was  done  by  the  division  of  labor.  I said 
when  I saw  that:  “What  would  Adam  Smith  say  if  he  saw  these 
six  or  more  men  displaced,  and  he  saw  a machine  that  simply  took 
in  the  wire  at  one  end  and  turned  out  the  pins  at  the  other?”  A large 
part  of  Mr.  Calder’s  paper  is  devoted  to  functional  management,  and  I 
will  call  on  Mr.  Gilbreth  to  say  something  about  functional  man- 
agement. 

Mr.  Frank  B.  Gilbreth  : The  quotation  that  Mr.  Kent  made 
about  the  pins  was  written  by  Adam  Smith,  in  1776,  in  that  book  that 
we  all  studied,  or  ought  to  have  studied,  on  an  inquiry  into  the  causes 
of  the  wealth  of  nations.  I am  not  just  sure  where  it  is,  it  is  some 
time  since  I read  it,  but  I think  it  is  in  book  1,  chapter  1,  sentence  1, 
that  he  says  that  one  of  the  great  causes  of  loss  in  manufacture  is 
having  a man  do  two  entirely  different  things.  He  does  not  say  it 
that  way,  and  that  would  be  an  exaggerated  statement,  but  that  is  the 
idea. 

You  know  that  a horse,  to  make  a record  on  the  track,  is  driven 

6 — 12 


around  the  track  three  or  four  times  just  before  he  goes  out  to  make 
the  record.  Not  a day  before,  but  immediately  before.  He  is  driven 
around  several  times,  because  those  who  know  about  horses  say  that 
about  the  third  or  fourth  time  around  he  goes  fastest. 

Those  who  have  watched  these  records  know  that  the  highest  out- 
put of  a given  kind  of  work  is  usually  the  third  hour  in  the  forenoon, 
and  the  second  highest  hour  for  the  day  is  the  third  hour  of  the  after- 
noon. That  does  not  always  hold  true,  but  it  does  hold  true  in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases  which  I have  heard  of,  taking  this  subject  and 
talking  about  it,  and  examining  the  records  of  different  men  on  the 
same  kind  of  work. 

Now,  nearly  everything  in  Adam  Smith's  book  accepts  this  idea  as 
a fact;  Mr.  Babbage,  in  1831  or  1832,  accepted  it  as  a fact,  and  he 
wrote  it  so  well  that  everybody  accepts  Babbage  now.  If  all  of  us 
agreed  that  there  is  a distinct  loss  in  output  of  a man  working  on  a 
new  type,  then  it  would  seem  that  it  is  a good  proof  of  functionaliza- 
tion. If  it  is  not  so,  that  is  not  proof. 

It  would  seem  obvious,  and  requiring  no  proof,  that  everybody 
has  a specialty.  There  are  many  men  interested  in  a job,  while  it  is 
being  planned,  who  hate  to  do  it  after  planning  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  a good  many  men,  who,  if  they  were  offered  two  jobs,  one  at 
$5  a day  to  plan  and  execute,  and  the  other  at  $4  a day  simply  to  exe- 
cute, would  turn  the  $5  job  down  and  rather  have  the  $4  job,  and 
escape  the  responsibility  for  planning.  That  is  another  reason  for 
believing  that  the  greatest  output  will  come  from  simplification  of  the 
work,  so  that  a man  can  do  the  particular  work  he  is  best  adapted  to  do. 

Many  psychologists  have  spent  much  time  in  demanding  the  selec- 
tion of  a worker  for  his  job.  That  is  a form  of  functionalization. 
That  might  be  one  of  the  first  forms  of  functionalization — the  determi- 
nation and  selection  of  the  right  workman  for  the  right  job.  And 
so  the  experimental  psychologist  has  spent  a great  deal  of  time  in 
such  selection  and  in  the  ability  to  memorize,  which  would  give  an 
idea  of  their  ability  to  work  in  such  a way.  But  all  the  psychologists, 
to  the  best  of  my  information,  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  man  who 
is  interested  in  a job  and  who  wants  to  do  it  is,  in  the  long  run,  the 
best  man  for  that  job,  unless  he  is  terribly  handicapped  by  not  being 
fitted  for  the  job  at  all. 

You  can  go  down  the  line  and  see  every  reason  under  the  sun  for 
functionalizing  the  work.  I know  Mr.  Calder,  and  have  the  highest 
opinion  of  him  as  an  engineer  and  as  a manager,  but  I do  not  agree 
with  him  when  he  does  not  approve  of  functionalization,  which  seems 
6—13 


to  be  a proved  fact.  I do  not  know  why  Mr.  Calder  does  not  believe 
in  it,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  he  puts  any  proof  forward  to 
back  up  his  statement  that  functionalization  is  not  desirable. 

Now,  after  separating  the  planning  from  the  performance,  and 
after  picking  the  right  man  for  the  job,  it  would  be  the  next  thing  to 
determine  how  long  it  would  take  him  to  do  the  work.  If  you  take 
a man  who  desires  to  do  the  job,  and  who  is  especially  fitted  for  the 
job,  and  then  train  him  for  the  job,  isn’t  it  obviously  a waste  of  time 
to  try  to  prove  that  he  is  unfit  for  it,  or  not  the  best  person  for  it? 

Those  opposed  to  functionalization  jump  up  and  say : “You  make 
him  narrow,  and  you  take  away  his  right  to  think;  and  if  he  wants  a 
job  anywhere  else  he  is  a round  peg  in  a square  hole.” 

Let  us  examine  that  statement  in  the  light  of  Mr.  Taylor’s  experi- 
ence. As  he  has  conferred  with  the  brightest  men  everywhere,  and 
has  had  the  greatest  experience  and  probably  the  greatest  opportunity 
to  conduct  experiments,  it  would  seem  that  Mr.  Taylor’s  ideas  on  this 
subject  should  be  very  good.  Mr.  Taylor’s  scheme,  which  he  approves 
of  for  the  shop,  is  almost  identical  with  the  management  of  a baseball 
team.  I do  not  know  anything  in  scientific  management,  as  approved 
by  Mr.  Taylor,  which  would  be  more  apt  as  a means  of  comparison. 
Certainly  no  man  would  say  that  he  would  not  want  his  boy  in  college 
to  specialize  for  pitching  because  he  would  not  be  a good  shortstop. 

I have  recently  been  seeing  if  we  could  improve  the  management 
of  hospitals,  and  I find  the  doctors  are  satisfied  to  accept  the  manage- 
ment that  applies  in  a manufacturing  establishment,  or  in  a brick 
mill,  or  a machine  shop,  and  apply  it  in  the  hospital.  This  would  rather 
upset  Mr.  Calder’s  seven  principles,  and  particularly  the  first  one ; and 
it  would  seem  that  all  the  objections  to  functionalization  are  pretty 
well  taken  care  of  in  the  baseball  team,  not  only  taking  in  the  nine 
players,  but  the  umpire  and  the  management  and  the  man  who  sends 
them  from  town  to  town,  and  the  man  who  takes  care  of  the  gate 
receipts,  and  so  forth. 

One  thing  I want  to  mention  particularly  is  the  initiative  under  the 
Taylor  system.  Mr.  Calder  says,  or  insinuates,  that  the  initiative  of 
the  workman  cannot  be  obtained  under  this  scheme.  As  a matter  of 
fact,  it  is  obtained,  and  it  is  the  only  way  to  conserve  all  the  good 
ideas  of  the  workingman.  The  scientific  managers  do  not  run  a debat- 
ing society  when  they  put  in  a new  man.  They  ask  the  man  to  do 
the  work  in  the  standard  way  and  in  the  standard  time  and  standard 
quality  before  he  makes  any  suggestion.  After  he  has  done  that, 
then  any  suggestion  he  makes  will  probably  be  better.  And  the  man- 

6—14 


agement  is  only  too  glad  to  confer  with  him  and  to  give  him  a proper 
and  fitting  reward  for  his  initiative  and  invention ; and  in  that  way  we 
conserve  all  the  best  ideas  of  the  best  man. 

The  Chairman  : Mr.  Porter  has  something  to  say  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  H.  F.  J.  Porter:  From  the  contents  of  Mr.  Calder’s  paper  and 
the  discussion  which  has  been  aroused  by  it,  it  seems  to  me  that  there 
is  a misunderstanding  in  the  minds  of  the  people  regarding  the  way 
that  scientific  management  should  be  applied  in  our  shops.  When 
we  look  back  into  the  history  of  scientific  management,  we  see  that 
it  was  formulated  and  developed  by  engineers  largely  through  the 
analytical  training  which  their  minds  had  received  in  the  technical 
schools.  Therefore,  as  it  has  been  introduced  into  shops  it  has  been 
confined,  in  the  main,  to  the  Production  Department  with  which  en- 
gineers were  familiar  and  not  brought  into  the  other  departments; 
namely,  the  Financial,  the  Selling  and  the  Cost-accounting  Depart- 
ments, with  which  they  were  not  familiar.  These  latter  departments 
require  men  with  a different  training  to  manage  them.  Sometimes 
shops  do  not  have  these  four  departments  properly  arranged,  and  in 
some  of  them  one  or  the  other  does  not  even  exist.  Then  they  are 
like  four-wheeled  wagons  with  the  wheels  of  different  sizes  or  some 
missing  altogether,  and,  when  an  engineer  comes  along  and  develops 
one  and  neglects  the  rest,  conditions  are  not  only  not  improved  but 
made  worse.  Under  such  circumstances  there  is  no  scientific  organ- 
ization, and  without  it  scientific  management  is  impossible.  For  Organ- 
ization and  Management  are  the  two  attributes,  one  the  form,  the 
other  the  function  of  Government,  and  we  must  remember  that  the 
running  of  a shop  involves  the  government  of  the  men  engaged  in  it. 

Now  how  many  men  who  have  control  of  shops  have  studied  the 
science  of  government  so  as  to  know  anything  about  either  organiza- 
tion or  management? 

Is  it  not  possible,  if  not  probable,  that  most  of  our  shop  troubles 
come  from  ignorance  of  these  subjects  on  the  part  of  those  who  should 
possess  a knowledge  of  them,  and  yet  where  would  they  acquire  that 
knowledge?  There  has  been  no  place  to  acquire  it  until  of  late. 
Schools  have  recently  been  established  for  the  purpose.  That  is  one 
reason  for  the  establishment  of  this  Society,  to  collect  and  disseminate 
knowledge  of  such  measures  as  will  promote  efficiency.  The  sciences 
of  organization  and  management  are  among  these  measures,  and  that 
is  why  we  have  Symposiums  on  them  at  this  first  meeting. 

The  Chairman  : There  is  another  society  formed  for  the  study  of 
this  matter,  called  the  Scientific  Management  Society,  organized  a few 
6—15 


months  ago;  and  I was  called  to  attend  a meeting  of  that  society  two 
weeks  ago  and  to  make  the  first  address  made  there. 

That  is  formed  from  the  scientific  management  experts,  those 
actually  engaged  in  doing  things,  and  their  object  was  to  get  together 
to  compare  notes.  It  is  not  a publication  society  for  the  purpose  of 
educating  the  public,  but  simply  to  get  together  and  discuss  things 
that  relate  to  their  own  performance;  and  I had  to  make  an  address 
on  what  the  society  might  do.  At  the  end  of  the  address  I said  that  the 
best  thing  to  do  is  to  get  Mr.  Taylor’s  statement,  published  in  1903, 
in  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers, 
and  read  it  again.  Read  Mr.  Taylor  over  again,  and  see  what  he  says, 
and  you  will  be  surprised  to  find  how  thoroughly  he  covered  this  whole 
subject.  Just  read  Mr.  Taylor  again,  and  see  what  he  says  about  any 
phase  of  this  question.  I think  Mr.  Taylor  will  have  more  adherents 
the  more  his  original  paper  is  read.  It  is  a masterpiece  on  the  subject. 
Just  as  Adam  Smith  has  been  the  best  authority  on  political  economy 
for  the  past  one  hundred  years,  just  so  is  Taylor  on  scientific  man- 
agement for  the  next  one  hundred  years. 

6—16 


